Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How I feel about the holy scriptures . . .
110 views
Skip to first unread message
Daniel Mullarkey
Jul 21, 2022, 12:49:18 AM7/21/22
to
How I feel about the holy scriptures . . .
The good passages of the Abrahamic scriptures are much like the goodness of Aesop’s Fables; however, the bad passages of the Abrahamic scriptures are much like the badness of Homer’s Iliad. Unfortunately, while some societies say that a particular set of scriptures is perfect, not only is the story therein are often mythological or legendary when compared to logical or scientific truth, but the morals and ethics contained therein also lack normal, logical continuity. Traditional theology tends to claim that each set of these scriptures reiterates absolute morality, but each set of Abrahamic scriptures is too inconsistent for them to reiterate even objective morality much less absolute morality. It could also be said that if every passage of the Abrahamic scriptures were true, then God and Satan would be some type of weird entities that have too much power like the spooky, creepy, and insidious entities that were sometimes portrayed on the classic television show known as “The Twilight Zone.” No belief system, or anything else, for that matter should be defended, maintained, or eliminated through an appeal to consequences or authority based on the perverse use of force. Just remember, most people base their belief systems upon what the society around them teaches, even if the sum of their beliefs don’t really make any sense. It is ironic that when humanity was younger, people had less non-violent wisdom with weapons of much more limited destructive capacity, but in modern times, the reverse is true: People have more non-violent wisdom, but with weapons of greater destructive capacity.
It could be said that fundamentalists, especially their extremists, are usually motivated by four factors: a hyper-religious complex, a self-referential complex, a liberation complex, and a persecution complex. Fundamentalism was originally defined by Christians who believe that the Holy Bible is authoritative and inerrant and is primarily meant to be interpreted literally and intratextuality, to the point of literally interpreting scripture with scripture. Instead of inconsistencies in the Holy Bible being interpreted as man-made contradictory errors, they go by the letter of what the text says and then extrapolate what they believe that the meaning of the text is based on harmonizing the inconsistencies therein. This process could be described as a circular logic process. And it could be said that there are fundamentalists of the like within Judaism and Islam that do the exact same thing with their own set of holy scriptures. Please note that while some fundamentalists of the Abrahamic religions have their endearing qualities, they are not well liked by the masses due to the prejudiced behavior that they tend to exhibit and due to their cult-like tendencies. As a side effect of a fundamentalist approach to any inconsistencies in its respective holy scriptures, crises of faith are more likely to occur than in more moderate forms of religion and in more church-centered (or synagogue-centered or mosque-centered) forms of religion.
Much like some people refuse to associate with works of art that have macabre and even criminal themes because those detractors believe that said works of art are produced to be taken literally and seriously: I prefer not to directly associate with the scriptural perfection doctrine from the Abrahamic religions, scientific and historical concerns notwithstanding, because it appears to endorse human rights law violations and humanitarian law violations, even if most people don’t take that content seriously. And if a people do not aspire to minimize the moral cost of waging war, up to and including genocide, then they themselves and their own families and children might become victims of their own devices in the form of precedent and retaliation.
The truth is that the whole of each of the Abrahamic scriptures are irrational, not just when compared to scientific fact, but also in terms of morals, and that in the end people make their own choices and are responsible for their own choices, whether those choices are ill-informed or not. And fundamentalists do not just take an authoritarian approach to the holy scriptures, but they also take the approach that most of its contents are logical or that there is otherwise a logical reason for all its contents. Thus, with fundamentalism, extrapolation or symbolism is the exception to the rule, not the norm. The primary problem with the fundamentalist approach to the Abrahamic religious scriptures is not merely that of the temptation for wanton and gratuitous violence, but in the potential and reality of imperatives to engage in exactly that kind of behavior. To paraphrase an old English proverb: “you can lead a horse to some water, but you cannot make him drink from it.”
Of course, the key difference is that common works of art are not by any means authoritative, whereas religion typically is authoritative. It is far-fetched enough to have blind faith in a book, but it is even more far-fetched to also have blind faith in a particular interpretation of that book. Unfortunately, the fact that society highly values the Abrahamic scriptures, and puts them on a very high pedestal, creates one too many ethical dilemmas. The cruel paradox here is that although it is sacrilegious in modern times to quote the Abrahamic scriptures to commit unspeakable acts, it is also sacrilegious to dispute the holiness or relevancy of any of the passages thereof that naturally lend themselves to such acts. It is as if religious society is not only asking people to be benevolent, which in and of itself is normal, but to also abandon logic in the process of doing so, which is not normal, all so that the holy scriptures and its contents are not questioned whatsoever, which is the epitome of the logical fallacy known as “special pleading”. The ethical dilemma is that if you cite passages like those below with the intent to solicit people to reject believing that those holy books are perfect:
• The passages in question will simply be regarded as applicable to the story that the scriptures convey that took place long ago, but as no longer applicable today.
• If you are dealing with a believer who believes that his or her respective scriptures is benevolent no matter what, he or she might deny the passages that you cite that conflict with that belief as part of the scriptures and attribute those passages as though they were purely of your own creation, or were somehow taken out of context as a propagandistic statement without any actual evidence, and thus attributing malice to your own words that aren’t actually there.
• If you are dealing with a religious fanatic, he or she might turn to religiously motivated, ideological terrorism because of citing those passages or such passages will simply cement his or her belief in religiously motivated, ideological terrorism.
• On the other hand, if you all-together refuse to cite those passages with the intent to solicit people to reject believing that those holy books are perfect at all, you might miss the chance to deconvert some believers from believing that the holy books that have those passages in them are totally perfect, while also missing the chance to prevent some people from being swayed into believing that those holy books are perfect, thereby potentially preventing a sizable amount of religiously-motivated, ideological terrorism.
The good passages of the Abrahamic scriptures are much like the goodness of Aesop’s Fables; however, the bad passages of the Abrahamic scriptures are much like the badness of Homer’s Iliad. Unfortunately, while some societies say that a particular set of scriptures is perfect, not only is the story therein are often mythological or legendary when compared to logical or scientific truth, but the morals and ethics contained therein also lack normal, logical continuity. Traditional theology tends to claim that each set of these scriptures reiterates absolute morality, but each set of Abrahamic scriptures is too inconsistent for them to reiterate even objective morality much less absolute morality. It could also be said that if every passage of the Abrahamic scriptures were true, then God and Satan would be some type of weird entities that have too much power like the spooky, creepy, and insidious entities that were sometimes portrayed on the classic television show known as “The Twilight Zone.” No belief system, or anything else, for that matter should be defended, maintained, or eliminated through an appeal to consequences or authority based on the perverse use of force. Just remember, most people base their belief systems upon what the society around them teaches, even if the sum of their beliefs don’t really make any sense. It is ironic that when humanity was younger, people had less non-violent wisdom with weapons of much more limited destructive capacity, but in modern times, the reverse is true: People have more non-violent wisdom, but with weapons of greater destructive capacity.
It could be said that fundamentalists, especially their extremists, are usually motivated by four factors: a hyper-religious complex, a self-referential complex, a liberation complex, and a persecution complex. Fundamentalism was originally defined by Christians who believe that the Holy Bible is authoritative and inerrant and is primarily meant to be interpreted literally and intratextuality, to the point of literally interpreting scripture with scripture. Instead of inconsistencies in the Holy Bible being interpreted as man-made contradictory errors, they go by the letter of what the text says and then extrapolate what they believe that the meaning of the text is based on harmonizing the inconsistencies therein. This process could be described as a circular logic process. And it could be said that there are fundamentalists of the like within Judaism and Islam that do the exact same thing with their own set of holy scriptures. Please note that while some fundamentalists of the Abrahamic religions have their endearing qualities, they are not well liked by the masses due to the prejudiced behavior that they tend to exhibit and due to their cult-like tendencies. As a side effect of a fundamentalist approach to any inconsistencies in its respective holy scriptures, crises of faith are more likely to occur than in more moderate forms of religion and in more church-centered (or synagogue-centered or mosque-centered) forms of religion.
Much like some people refuse to associate with works of art that have macabre and even criminal themes because those detractors believe that said works of art are produced to be taken literally and seriously: I prefer not to directly associate with the scriptural perfection doctrine from the Abrahamic religions, scientific and historical concerns notwithstanding, because it appears to endorse human rights law violations and humanitarian law violations, even if most people don’t take that content seriously. And if a people do not aspire to minimize the moral cost of waging war, up to and including genocide, then they themselves and their own families and children might become victims of their own devices in the form of precedent and retaliation.
The truth is that the whole of each of the Abrahamic scriptures are irrational, not just when compared to scientific fact, but also in terms of morals, and that in the end people make their own choices and are responsible for their own choices, whether those choices are ill-informed or not. And fundamentalists do not just take an authoritarian approach to the holy scriptures, but they also take the approach that most of its contents are logical or that there is otherwise a logical reason for all its contents. Thus, with fundamentalism, extrapolation or symbolism is the exception to the rule, not the norm. The primary problem with the fundamentalist approach to the Abrahamic religious scriptures is not merely that of the temptation for wanton and gratuitous violence, but in the potential and reality of imperatives to engage in exactly that kind of behavior. To paraphrase an old English proverb: “you can lead a horse to some water, but you cannot make him drink from it.”
Of course, the key difference is that common works of art are not by any means authoritative, whereas religion typically is authoritative. It is far-fetched enough to have blind faith in a book, but it is even more far-fetched to also have blind faith in a particular interpretation of that book. Unfortunately, the fact that society highly values the Abrahamic scriptures, and puts them on a very high pedestal, creates one too many ethical dilemmas. The cruel paradox here is that although it is sacrilegious in modern times to quote the Abrahamic scriptures to commit unspeakable acts, it is also sacrilegious to dispute the holiness or relevancy of any of the passages thereof that naturally lend themselves to such acts. It is as if religious society is not only asking people to be benevolent, which in and of itself is normal, but to also abandon logic in the process of doing so, which is not normal, all so that the holy scriptures and its contents are not questioned whatsoever, which is the epitome of the logical fallacy known as “special pleading”. The ethical dilemma is that if you cite passages like those below with the intent to solicit people to reject believing that those holy books are perfect:
• The passages in question will simply be regarded as applicable to the story that the scriptures convey that took place long ago, but as no longer applicable today.
• If you are dealing with a believer who believes that his or her respective scriptures is benevolent no matter what, he or she might deny the passages that you cite that conflict with that belief as part of the scriptures and attribute those passages as though they were purely of your own creation, or were somehow taken out of context as a propagandistic statement without any actual evidence, and thus attributing malice to your own words that aren’t actually there.
• If you are dealing with a religious fanatic, he or she might turn to religiously motivated, ideological terrorism because of citing those passages or such passages will simply cement his or her belief in religiously motivated, ideological terrorism.
• On the other hand, if you all-together refuse to cite those passages with the intent to solicit people to reject believing that those holy books are perfect at all, you might miss the chance to deconvert some believers from believing that the holy books that have those passages in them are totally perfect, while also missing the chance to prevent some people from being swayed into believing that those holy books are perfect, thereby potentially preventing a sizable amount of religiously-motivated, ideological terrorism.
0 new messages